CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.37/2011
MRS. SHASHI DUGGAL
W/O SH. RAJESH KUMAR
R/O 130/1, TAJPUR BADARPUR,
NEW DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S ROHAN MOTORS LTD.,
F-9/B1 MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/DIRECTOR
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:06.06.2018
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The complainant, Mrs. Shashi Duggal originally filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against M/s Rohan Motors Ltd., OP-1, but later on sought to amend the complaint and was permitted to implead National Insurance Company Ltd., OP-2, as well. It is submitted by the complainant that she is the registered owner of Maruti car bearing no.DL 3C AD 6035 (Wagon R). It is further stated that OP-1 is the authorised dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd and has been maintaining workshop for repairs of Maruti cars, and that the said car was got insured by the complainant with OP-2, for the period from 19.12.2009 to 18.12.2010 vide comprehensive Insurance Policy no.70782537 for all risks.
It is submitted that the said car met with an accident on 25.9.2017 and got damaged, and that the damaged car was towed with the help of another vehicle to the workshop of OP-1 for carrying out repairs to make it roadworthy, and that after inspection of the car by the mechanic Shri Ram Sagar, at the OP-1’s workshop, the estimated expenses for the necessary repairs were informed to the complainant under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant agreed to the same and handed over the car to OP-1 to carry out the repairs as per the estimate of Rs.45,000/- and accordingly a job card dated 25.9.2010 was issued mentioning the date of completion and delivery on 20.10.2010 at 15.30 pm and accordingly the said card was duly signed by the complainant’s husband and OP-1’s representative, namely, Rajesh Kumar. On 20th October, 2010 when the complainant visited the workshop to take delivery of the car against payment as per estimate, the respondent failed to complete the repairs and hand over the car, and requested the complainant and her husband to come after 2-3 days and take delivery of the repaired car. As per the assurance, they again went on the 24.10.2010 but were shocked to know that the car had not been repaired even till then, and the delivery was deferred for another week. Even in spite of their requests to the OP-1 that they are suffering harassment on account of non availability of the car and have been spending a lot on hiring taxis, the car had not been delivered till date.
The complainant finally served a legal notice dated 13.12.2010 but in spite of that, OP-1 has failed to carry out repairs of the car even after accepting Rs.45000/-. The complainant served a reminder dated 6.1.2011, claiming damages for undue harassment, loss in business, etc. but the OP has failed to hand over the car. In this complaint, the complainant has prayed that the OP-1 be directed to hand over the car to the complainant and claimed Rs.1,25,000/- being consolidated damages with costs. The complainant vide his application dated 19.12.2016 sought to amend the pleadings and prayer under O.VI R-17 prayed that the OP-1 to pay market value of the car to the complainant i.e. Rs/1,94,932/- as the Market WagonR is lying with OP-1 for fault of OP-1/OP-2 and the car is completely road unworthy. The complainant has further sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with 18% interest, and Rs.50,000/- as litigation charges.
Notice was duly served on OP-1. In fact Mr. Rohtas Dabbas, advocate, appeared for OP-1 on 11.03.2011 and sought time to file reply and the matter was adjourned for reply for 25.04.2011. On that day nobody appeared for OP-1 accordingly OP-1 was proceeded ex parte. Thereafter an application was moved by Mr. Virender Kumar, Vice President cum Company Secretary of OP-1 for setting aside the ex parte order. However, therafter nobody appeared for OP-1 and that application was dismissed in default. Even after amendment of the complaint, a notice was issued to OP-1 but nobody appeared for OP-1 so OP-1 was well aware of the proceedings and deliberately did not appear before this Forum.
In reply to the complainant, OP-2, the National Insurance Company Ltd., filed its Written Statement, mentioning that OP-2 had already settled the claim on the basis of the survey report and paid the settled amount i.e. Rs.1,15,800/- as full and final settlement to OP-1. It is further submitted that the complainant has misrepresented the whole story and that there is no deficiency in the service rendered by OP-2, and that there is no liability to pay the compensation.
The complainant filed his replication to the WS of OP-2, and submitted that OP-2 should not have passed on the amount of Rs.1,15,800/- to OP-1. OP-2 could have shown the Car as a case of total loss as the OP-1 had raised a bill of Rs.2,03,470/- which is more than the value of the Maruti Car shown in the policy issued by OP-2. It is submitted that if the cost of repairs is beyond the value of the cost of the car, then the duty of the OP-2 would be show the vehicle as total loss and pay the market value of the car to the complainant. OP-2 has not questioned OP-1 how they have raised Rs.2,03,470/- as repair charges whereas OP-1 has passed only Rs.1,15,800/. It is submitted that OP-2 has colluded with OP-1 and has adopted unfair trade practice. The car of the complainant has been lying with OP-1 for two years and is not in road-worthy condition and that both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the cost of the car to the complainant besides compensation.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
It is proved on record that the car of the complainant met with an accident on 25.09.2010 and on the same day the car was towed to the workshop of OP-1 where a job card was prepared. Though the complainant has stated that OP-1 agreed to repair the car for a total sum of Rs.45,000/- but it is not so stated in the job card. As per the job card, after repair delivery of the car was to be made on 20.10.2010. Obviously the delivery of the car was not made even after filing of the complaint. No efforts were made for delivery of the car, ultimately the complaint was amended. Since for a long time the car was not delivered to the complainant and the same has become useless for him, he has prayed for price of the car. The amendment was allowed. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in sevice on the part of OP-1. OP-1 was bound to deliver the car to the complainant. The car was not delivered to the complainant even after service of demand notice dated 13.12.2010 and its reminder dated 06.01.2011. The car was not delivered even after the complaint was filed in the court. It is significant to note that OP-2 appointed a surveyor and the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,15,800/- and the said amount has already been paid by OP-2 to OP-1. Even after accepting the amount from the insurance company, OP-1 has not made any efforts to deliver the car to the complainant. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. As already stated that even after receiving the copy of the complaint, OP-1 did not bother to return the car to the complainant. The car was insured for IDV of Rs.1,94,932/- that means the value of the car when it was delivered to OP-1 was Rs.1,94,932/-. OP-1 has already received the amount spent by it on the repair of the car from the insurance company.
OP-1 is bound to refund the amount of Rs.1,94,932/- to the complainant as there was no question of taking the delivery of the car now i.e. after eight years. The said amount be paid within one month of the receipt of this order failing which it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
